The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. In light of the summary of the grounds for appeal: (a) the statement of the victim E (hereinafter “victim”) and the victim’s superior position and degree; (b) it cannot be deemed that the Defendant unilaterally suffered an assault from the victim; and (c) it is sufficient to determine the Defendant’s act as an attack exceeding the permissible scope under social norms. However, the lower court acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged in this case; (d) so, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on self-defense or legitimate act, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion

2. Determination

A. Around 03:00 on June 12, 2012, the summary of the facts charged in the instant case: (a) on the roads in front of the operation of the Defendant located in Seongbuk-gu, Changwon-si, Changwon-si, set up against the victim E’s assault; (b) faced the victim with his/her arms, and (c) flacked the victim with his/her hands, thereby causing injury, such as a blue blue, which requires approximately seven days of treatment.

B. The lower court’s determination (1) generally finds it difficult to view the act of attack and defense to constitute “political act” or “self-defense” for the purpose of defense by leaving only one of the acts of attack and having the character of both parties, at the same time, as the act of attack and defense was conducted between the fighting parties. However, even if one party appears to have conducted fighting, in fact one party unilaterally commits an illegal attack and the other party uses tangible power as a means of resistance to protect himself/herself from such attack and escape therefrom, unless it is deemed that the act is a new affirmative attack, it is reasonable to view that it is permissible under the social concept and its illegality is dismissed (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do12958, Feb. 11, 2010).